APPAREL DYNAMICS LTD v. ALEXANDER DAVID BLOIS-BROOKE AND OTHERS

HCA 1446/2026

[2026] HKCFI 5038

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 1446 OF 2026

________________________

________________________

_____________________________________

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

_____________________________________

1.  On 18 August 2026, I granted an ex parte Mareva Injunction against the First, Second, and Fifth Defendants in this action. On the return date, 28 August 2026, I discharged the injunction against the Fifth Defendant, but continued it against the First and Second Defendants. I also gave permission to issue proceedings in England and Wales against the Second Defendant to seek disclosure orders in support of the Mareva. I was also told that the Fifth Defendant’s bank, HSBC, had agreed to the terms of a draft order against it requiring it to disclose information relating to the Fifth Defendant’s account, and on that basis I also granted that order.

2.  I now give my brief reasons.

3.  The action is a claim by a company incorporated in Hong Kong, Apparel Dynamics Limited (“ADHK”), against ten defendants arising out of an alleged scheme to defraud ADHK.  ADHK is wholly owned by Peter Anthony Rakich (“Mr Rakich”), a New Zealand businessman, and is one of several companies in the garment business run by Mr Rakich.

4.  The alleged fraud is described in detail in the affidavit of Mr Rakich dated 17 August 2026.  The central allegation is that Fifth Defendant, Toptime Group Limited (“TTHK”), issued a series of falsified invoices (“the Invoices”) to trick ADHK into making unjustified payments to TTHK.  Some of these payments were simply inflated in amount; others duplicated payments that had already been made.

5.  The First Defendant, Alexander David Blois-Brooke (“ABB”), was the former director and de facto controller of TTHK.  The Second Defendant, Matthew Robert Goebel (“Matthew”), was a trusted associate of Mr Rakich and was relied on by him to control the operation of ADHK and its business.  It is alleged that ABB and Matthew acted in collusion, and that Matthew was responsible for misleading Mr Rakich into authorising ADHK to pay the Invoices to TTHK.

6.  According to Mr Rakich, the fraud began in or about 2019, but he only started to become suspicious in or around 8 April 2024.  He then arranged for auditors to make enquiries, culminating in the dismissal of Matthew in November 2025.

7.  At the ex parte hearing, there was evidence that TTHK held assets in a bank account in Hong Kong, and that ABB was the registered shareholder of one or more Hong Kong companies (although these shares were believed to be of no significant value).  There was, however, also evidence that ABB owned some valuable shares in the PRC.  Matthew, meanwhile, held a bank account in England, and was also the registered owner, jointly with his wife, of a property in England.  The application was said to be urgent because it had recently been discovered that TTHK, which was believed to hold a substantial part of the defrauded sums, had applied for deregistration in Hong Kong, and it was feared that the traceable proceeds would be further dissipated.  

8.  Having heard the submissions of Felix Ng, Counsel for ADHK, and having adjourned for half an hour to read Mr Rakich’s affidavit (but not the exhibits), I was satisfied that there was a good arguable case on the merits and a real risk of dissipation of assets, including assets within the jurisdiction.  In view of the very limited time, I granted a worldwide Mareva injunction against ABB and Matthew, and a domestic Mareva injunction against TTHK.  I considered this to be the minimum relief necessary to preserve the status quo, and declined to make a proprietary injunction at that stage.  At the same time, I expressed some concern that, given that Matthew had been dismissed as long ago as November 2025, there was a risk that steps might have already been taken to conceal the proceeds and/or to put them beyond reach.

9.  On the return date, the Defendants did not appear.  However, ADHK quite properly disclosed that since the last hearing, it had discovered that the amount held in TTHK’s bank account was “insignificant”.  Had that been known at the date of the ex parte application, a Mareva would not have been granted, at least as against TTHK, and in those circumstances I held that it should not be continued.  

10.  Having heard further argument from Mr Ng, I agreed to continue the worldwide Mareva injunctions against ABB and Matthew, and make orders in support of those injunctions requiring them to disclose assets.  I also granted leave to issue a concurrent Writ out of the jurisdiction on Matthew, and a Bank Disclosure Order in the form that had been agreed by HSBC. Leave was also given to serve the Injunction on Matthew out of the jurisdiction.